Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2017 - Ukraine (Crimea)

In February 2014 Russian forces entered Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and occupied it militarily. In March 2014 Russia announced the peninsula had become part of the Russian Federation following a sham referendum that violated Ukraine’s constitution. On March 27, 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 68/262 on the “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine,” which called on states and international organizations not to recognize any change in Crimea’s status and affirmed the commitment of the United Nations to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. In April 2014 Ukraine’s legislature (Verkhovna Rada) adopted a law attributing responsibility for human rights violations in Crimea to the Russian Federation as the occupying state. The United States does not recognize the attempted “annexation” of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Russian law has been applied in Ukraine’s Crimea since the Russian occupation and purported “annexation” of the peninsula. For detailed information on the laws and practices of the Russian Federation, see the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A local authority installed by the Russian government and led by Sergey Aksyonov as “prime minister” of the “state council of the republic of Crimea” administers occupied Crimea. The “state council” is responsible for day-to-day administration and other functions of governing. In September 2016 Russia’s nationwide parliamentary elections included seats allocated for purportedly annexed Crimea, a move widely condemned by the international community and that contravened the Ukrainian constitution.

Russian authorities maintained control over Russian military and security forces deployed in Crimea. Russian security services continued to consolidate control over Crimea and restrict human rights. Occupation authorities imposed and disproportionately applied repressive Russian Federation laws on the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.

Significant human rights issues includeddisappearances; torture, including punitive psychiatric incarceration; harsh prison conditions, including removing prisoners to Russia; arbitrary arrest and detention; a complete lack of judicial independence; political prisoners; interference with privacy; severe restrictions on freedom of expression and the media, including closing outlets and violence against journalists; restrictions on the internet including blocking websites; , gross and widespread suppression of freedom of assembly; severe restriction of freedom of association, including barring the Crimean Tatar Mejlis; onerous restrictions on freedom of movement; restrictions on participation in the political process; systemic rampant corruption; and violence against ethnic Ukranians and Crimean Tatars.

Russian-installed authorities took few steps to investigate or prosecute officials or individuals who committed human rights abuses, creating an atmosphere of impunity and lawlessness. Occupation and local “self-defense” forces often did not wear insignia and committed abuses with impunity.

Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from:

a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings

Russian occupation authorities did not adequately investigate cases of abductions and killings of Crimean residents from 2014 and 2015. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 12 Crimean residents who had disappeared during the occupation were later found dead. Occupation authorities did not investigate other suspicious deaths and disappearances, occasionally categorizing them as suicide. Human rights observers reported that families frequently did not challenge findings in such cases due to fear of retaliation.

b. Disappearance

According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, as of October 1, 28 persons had disappeared since the occupation of Crimea, including 12 later found dead. Russian occupation authorities did not adequately investigate the deaths and disappearances. Human rights groups reported that police often refused to register reports of disappearances and intimidated and threatened with detention those who tried to report a disappearance. Ukrainian government and human rights groups believed Russian security forces kidnapped the individuals for opposing Russia’s occupation to instill fear in the population and prevent dissent.

According to human rights groups, occupation authorities took no apparent steps to investigate the May 2016 disappearance of Crimean Tatar activist Ervin Ibragimov in Bakhchisaray, who was last seen being forced into a van by men wearing police uniforms. Ibragimov’s whereabouts were still unknown at year’s end. Press reports indicated that police supposedly investigating the crime refused to provide any information about the investigation to Ibragimov’s family. In September his father was informed the investigation into Ibragimov’s case would be united with two other cases of disappearances that took place in Bakhchisaray in April 2016.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

There were widespread reports Russian authorities in Crimea abused residents who opposed the occupation. Human rights monitors reported that Russian occupying forces subjected Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in particular to physical abuse. On September 13, for example, members of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) along with masked men broke into the family home of Renat Paralamov in the town of Nyzhniohirsk. They seized his laptop, tablet, and a book on Islam, and detained him. Law enforcement officials denied any knowledge of his whereabouts. Paralamov then contacted his family the next evening and asked them to pick him up at the Simferopol bus station. He had been beaten and showed physical signs of torture. Paralamov publicly stated he had been tied up with a bag over his head, beaten, injected with unknown substances, and subjected to electric shocks. Paralamov stated he signed false statements while under pressure from the torture.

Occupation authorities demonstrated a pattern of using punitive psychiatric incarceration as a means of pressuring detained individuals. On May 25, so-called authorities ordered the psychiatric evaluation of Suleyman Kadyrov, a member of the Feodosia regional Mejlis, who was charged with publicly inciting the violation of Russia’s territorial integrity because of a social media post stating that Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Observers called the decision punitive and without legitimate basis. As of late September, seven Crimean Tatar defendants had been subjected to psychiatric evaluation and confinement against their will without apparent medical need (see section 1.d.).

Human rights monitors reported that occupation authorities also threatened individuals with violence or imprisonment if they did not testify in court against individuals authorities believed were opposed to the occupation.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Physical Conditions: Prison and detention center conditions reportedly remained harsh and overcrowded. Former detainees in Crimea complained to the HRMMU about the resulting degrading treatment. Human rights groups reported prisons suffered from overcrowding and poor conditions.

The HRMMU reported a substantial number of Crimean prisoners were transferred to the Russian Federation. One factor in the transfers was the lack of specialized penitentiary facilities in Crimea, requiring the transfer of juveniles, persons sentenced to life imprisonment, and prisoners suffering from serious physical and mental illnesses.

According the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the OSCE’s high commissioner on national minorities, health care in prisons deteriorated after the occupation began.

According to the HRMMU report on Crimea, occupation authorities exerted pressure on detainees who refused to accept Russian Federation citizenship. A female detainee who rejected Russian Federation citizenship complained she was denied family visits and that sunflower oil was regularly poured over her personal belongings as a harassment technique. Other detainees who refused Russian Federation citizenship were placed in smaller cells or in solitary confinement.

Independent Monitoring: Occupation authorities did not permit monitoring of prison or detention center conditions by independent nongovernmental observers or international organizations. Occupation authorities permitted the “human rights ombudsman,” Lyudmila Lubina, to visit prisoners, but human rights activists regarded Lubina as representing the interests of occupation authorities and not an independent actor.

On March 17, 12 inmates serving sentences in the penitentiary institutions of Crimea were transferred to mainland Ukraine following advocacy by the Ukrainian ombudsman for human rights and her Russian counterpart.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

Russian government agencies, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Federal Investigative Committee, and the Office of the Prosecutor General applied and enforced Russian law in Crimea. The FSB also conducted security, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism activities and combatted organized crime and corruption. A “national police force” operated under the aegis of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In addition to abuses committed by Russian forces, “self-defense forces,” largely consisting of former Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs officers allegedly linked to local organized crime, reportedly continued to operate and commit abuses. These forces often acted with impunity in intimidating perceived occupation opponents and were involved in extrajudicial detentions and arbitrary confiscation of property. While the “law” places the “self-defense forces” under the authority of the “national police,” their members continued to commit abuses while receiving state funding for their activities as well as other rewards, such as beachfront property and service medals.

According to human rights groups, there was total impunity for human rights abuses committed by Russian occupation forces and Crimean “self-defense forces.”

Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees

See the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia for a description of the relevant Russian laws and procedures that the Russian government applied and enforced in occupied Crimea.

Arbitrary Arrest: Arbitrary arrests continued to occur as a means of instilling fear, stifling opposition, and inflicting punishment on those who opposed the occupation. According to the HRMMU, in many cases victims were neither charged nor tried but were detained as a form of extrajudicial punishment or harassment. Detention under such circumstances usually lasted from several hours to several days. Many victims were journalists, land or business owners, and persons arrested during police raids at markets, mosques, cafes, restaurants, or places of entertainment. The HRMMU noted the prevalence of members of the Crimean Tatar community among those apprehended during police raids. Detainees were typically taken to the police station, photographed, fingerprinted, and made to provide DNA samples before being released. The HRMMU calculated that, as of September, at least 150 such raids had taken place since the occupation began.

In one example of such an arrest, on February 22, activist Marlen Mustafa was arrested near his home by representatives of the FSB’s “Center for Combating Extremism.” While he was in detention, occupation law enforcement officials searched his house. Authorities detained 10 persons who had gathered outside his home to film the search and sentenced them to five days of administrative detention for “participating in an unsanctioned mass event.” Marlen Mustafa was sentenced to 11 days of administrative detention for reposting “extremist” videos on his social media account in 2014.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

Under the Russian occupation regime, the “judiciary” was neither independent nor impartial. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all were subject to political directives from occupation authorities. The outcomes of trials appeared predetermined by government interference.

Trial Procedures

See the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia for a description of the relevant Russian laws and procedures that the Russian government applied and enforced in occupied Crimea.

Occupation authorities interfered with a defendant’s ability to access an attorney. On January 25, FSB officers detained lawyer Nikolai Polozov in Simferopol shortly after he returned from giving a presentation on political prosecutions in Crimea at a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. FSB officers detained him for interrogation in the criminal case against Ilmi Umerov and then changed his status to a witness in the case. Doing so prevented him from representing Umerov in court. Polozov was subsequently released.

Political Prisoners and Detainees

Human Rights advocates estimated there were more than 50 political prisoners in occupied Crimea. Charges of extremism, terrorism, or violation of territorial integrity were particularly applied to opponents of the occupation, such as Crimean Tatars, independent journalists, and individuals expressing dissent on social media.

Russian occupation authorities also transferred Crimean cases to Russia’s legal system and changed the venue of prosecution for some detainees. Human rights groups identified several dozen Crimean residents as political prisoners held in either Crimea or Russia. These included: Teimur Abdullaev, Uzeir Abdullaev, Rustem Abultarov, Talyat Abdurakhmanov, Zevri Abseitov, Refat Alimov, Muslim Aliyev, Murat Aliyev, Ernest Ametov, Ali Asanov, Suleyman Asanov, Volodymyr Balukh, Enver Bekirov, Memet Belyalov, Oleksiy Bessarabov, Oleksiy Chirniy, Mustafa Dehermedzhy, Arsen Dzheparov, Emil Dzhemadenov, Volodymyr Dudka, Timur Ibragimov, Rustem Ismailov, Suleyman Kadyrov, Oleksandr Kolchenko, Andriy Kolomiets, Oleksandr Kostenko, Arsen Kubedinov, Emir-Ussein Kuku, Hennadiy Lymeshko, Serhiy Lytvinov, Enver Mamutov, Emil Minasov, Seyran Mustafayev, Remzi Memetov, Yevhen Panov, Nuri Primov, Volodymyr Prysich, Ayder Saledinov, Seyran Saliyev, Ferat Sayfullaev, Mykola Semena, Vadim Siruk, Oleg Sentsov, Glib Shabliy, Dmytro Shtyblikov, Mykola Shyptur, Oleksiy Stogniy, Redvan Suleymanov, Renat Suleymanov, Rustem Vaitov, Valentyn Vyhivskyi, Andriy Zakhtey, Ruslan Zaytullaev, and Server Zekeryaev.

On August 4, an occupation court in Crimea sentenced Ukrainian activist Volodymyr Balukh to three years and seven months in prison, and imposed a fine of 10,000 rubles ($174). On October 2, the verdict was cancelled and the case returned to trial court. On December 1, Balukh was transferred to house arrest as his appeals process continued. The FSB detained Balukh in December 2016, claiming it found ammunition and explosives in the attic of his house. Human rights defenders asserted that the material was planted in retaliation for his pro-Ukrainian views, which he displayed through hanging a plaque and Ukrainian flag in the courtyard of his house.

On September 11, an occupation court in Simferopol sentenced Akhtem Chiygoz, deputy head of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, to eight years in prison. Russian authorities arrested Chiygoz in 2015 and charged him with “inciting a mass riot” during protests he organized at the Crimean parliament in 2014 that were disrupted by pro-Russian activists, resulting in clashes between the groups. Subsequently occupation authorities prosecuted individuals alleged to have participated in the protest, although Russia did not exercise control over Crimea at the time. Human rights groups reported that authorities reviewed video of the incident and selectively brought charges against leading Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian individuals who subsequently opposed the occupation, in particular members of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis. Video footage showed Chiygoz and other Crimean Tatar leaders working to defuse tensions in the hopes of avoiding clashes with counterprotesters. Occupation authorities refused to investigate acts of violence committed by pro-Russian “protesters,” who independent observers believed likely were working for Russian security services.

On September 27, an occupation court in Simferopol sentenced Ilmi Umerov, deputy head of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, to two years in prison, which was harsher than the three-year suspended sentence sought by the prosecution. He was convicted on “separatism” charges based upon a 2016 television interview in which he stated that Crimea remains a part of Ukraine.

Both Chiygoz and Umerov were released October 25 following negotiations by the Turkish government. The details of their release were not publicly known.

f. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

See the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia for a description of the relevant Russian laws and procedures that the Russian government applied and enforced in occupied Crimea.

Occupation authorities and others engaged in electronic surveillance, entered residences and other premises without warrants, and harassed relatives and neighbors of perceived opposition figures.

Russian occupation authorities routinely conducted raids on homes to intimidate the local population, particularly Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, ostensibly on the grounds of searching for weapons, drugs, or “extremist literature.”

Human rights groups reported Russian authorities had widespread authority to tap telephones and read electronic communications and had established a network of informants to report on suspicious activities. According to Mejlis members, Russian authorities had invited hundreds of Crimean Tatars to “interviews” where authorities played back the interviewees’ telephone conversations and read their email aloud. Authorities reportedly encouraged state employees to inform on their colleagues who might oppose the occupation. According to human rights advocates, eavesdropping and visits by security personnel created an environment in which persons were afraid to voice any opinion contrary to the occupation authorities, even in private.

Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Expression, Including for the Press

Occupation authorities significantly restricted freedom of expression and subjected dissenting voices including the press to harassment and prosecution. They refused to register independent print and broadcast media outlets, forcing them to cease operations. Threats and harassment against international and Ukrainian journalists were common.

Freedom of Expression: Individuals could not publicly criticize the Russian occupation without fear of reprisal. Human rights groups reported the FSB engaged in widespread surveillance of social media, telephones, and electronic communication and routinely summoned individuals for “discussions” for voicing or posting opposition to the Russian occupation.

For example, on April 13, a riot patrol unit searched the homes of Seidamet Mustafayev and Riza Muzhdabayev, both of whom had allegedly posted the banned symbols of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir Islamic group through their social network accounts. Mustafayev was arrested and held for 12 days, while Muzhdabayev spent three days in custody. After the search occupation authorities detained six Crimean Tatars who had witnessed the search.

On May 23, a member of the local Mejlis was summoned to the police station in the village of Sovetskoe for mentioning in a social network posting the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people without stating that it was prohibited in the territory of Crimea. On June 1, the occupation court found him guilty of an administrative violation and imposed a fine of 2,000 Russian rubles ($35).

Press and Media Freedom: Independent print and broadcast media could not operate freely. Occupation authorities refused to register most independent media outlets, forcing them to close in 2015.

On September 22, Ukrainian journalist Mykola Semena, who had been charged in 2016 with “undermining Russian territorial integrity via mass media,” received a 2.5-year suspended sentence with a prohibition on journalistic activities. Semena, a freelance writer for the news website Krym Realii, had written articles using a pseudonym criticizing the de facto Crimean government and Russian occupation. Occupation authorities detained Semena twice in 2015, and human rights groups believed that Russian security forces hacked into his computer to prove he had written material critical of the occupation. Authorities had placed Semena, who was in poor health, under house arrest in April 2016.

Violence and Harassment: There were numerous cases of Russian security forces or police harassing independent media and detaining journalists in connection with their professional activities.

On February 16, police officers in Simferopol apprehended a camera crew of the Ukrainian STB channel, Alyona Lunkova, Andriy Shurin, Serhiy Sivko, and Vitaliy Kikot, and a journalist of Hromadske Radio, Iryna Romaliyska, as they were interviewing passers-by. Law enforcement officials spent more than an hour reviewing their documentation, but they did not take any individuals into custody after learning that a defense attorney had been summoned. The journalists reported they were then followed from Kerch to Yalta.

Censorship or Content Restrictions: Following Russia’s occupation of Crimea, journalists overwhelmingly resorted to self-censorship to continue reporting and broadcasting. Russian occupation authorities banned most Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar-language broadcasts, replacing the content with Russian programming. Human rights groups reported Russian authorities forbade songs by Ukrainian singers, such as Ruslana and Jamala, from playing on Crimean radio stations. Censorship of independent internet sites became more widespread.

Internet Freedom

Russian occupation authorities restricted free expression on the internet by imposing repressive laws of the Russian Federation on Crimea (see section 2.a. of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia). Security services routinely monitored and controlled internet activity to suppress dissenting opinions. According to media accounts, occupation authorities interrogated residents of Crimea for posting pro-Ukrainian opinions on Facebook or in blogs.

On January 12, FSB officers searched the apartment of a married couple, Natalia Kharchenko and Andriy Vynohradov, in Simferopol. The search warrant indicated it was issued in connection with a pretrial criminal investigation into alleged extremist posts on the social media VKontakte website. The post included a photo of Kharchenko holding a Ukrainian flag and stated that Russia was evil and must be fought.

Throughout the year Russian authorities blocked internet sites they considered “extremist,” but that in fact provided mainstream reporting about the situation in Crimea. Russian authorities blocked more than 60 websites as “extremist” for stating Crimea remained a part of Ukraine.

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

Russian authorities in Crimea engaged in a widespread campaign to suppress the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages. While Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian are official languages in occupied Crimea, authorities continued to reduce instruction in schools and offered the languages only as optional instruction at the end of the school day. The Mejlis reported authorities continued to pressure Crimean Tatars to use the Cyrillic, rather than the Latin, alphabet.

According to press reports, on February 27, FSB agents subjected biologist Guriy Kornilov to intimidating interrogations in retaliation for his opposition to Russia’s occupation. Kornilov was fired from his position at the Nikitinsky Botanical Gardens in Yalta in 2016 after he refused to take Russian citizenship and made his positions known within the scientific community.

b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association

Freedom of Peaceful Assembly

Organizations representing minority communities reported gross and widespread harassment and intimidation by occupation authorities to suppress their ability to assemble peacefully. Abuses included arbitrary searches, interrogations, threats of deportation, and unsubstantiated accusations of possessing “extremist” literature.

The “regulation” limits the places in Crimea where public events may be held to 366 listed locations. The HRMMU noted that the “regulation” restricted freedom of assembly to a shrinking number of “specially designated spaces,” an unnecessary move that appeared “designed to dissuade the exercise of the right of freedom of assembly.”

Persons who expressed their position publicly understood that they put at risk themselves and their families. On May 18, Osman Izmaylov, a Crimean Tatar, was stopped by the traffic police four times for wearing the mourning ribbon attached to a Crimean Tatar flag on the grounds that “the car is not a means of transporting flags,” “it is prohibited by technical guidelines,” and “the flag distracts drivers.” Izmaylov was told that he violated the law on peaceful assembly, despite the fact that he was driving his personal vehicle.

On August 8, 76-year-old Crimean Tatar Server Karametov was detained and sentenced to 10 days of administrative arrest in Simferopol. Karametov was arrested while demonstrating outside the Supreme Court building in support of deputy head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Akhtem Chiygoz, who had been convicted and sentenced on charges of organizing an illegal demonstration in 2014. Occupation authorities used disproportionate force while detaining him, including holding him in a police car for five hours with no access to toilets, food, water, or medication. A number of procedural safeguards were violated during his trial, including access to defense counsel, a translator, and independent examination of evidence.

There were reports of occupation authorities using coercive methods to provide for participation at rallies in support of the “government.”

There were reports that occupation authorities charged and fined individuals for allegedly violating public assembly rules in retaliation for gathering to witness security force raids on homes.

Freedom of Association

Occupation authorities broadly restricted freedom of association for individuals that opposed the occupation. For example, in May the Simferopol-based Ukrainian Cultural Center was forced to close due to constant pressure on the center’s leadership. Members of the center remained under constant surveillance, as they had been since 2014. Their public activities, including paying tribute to Ukrainian literary, political, or historical figures, were often disrupted or prohibited.

Following the 2016 ban on the Crimean Tatar Mejlis as an “extremist organization,” occupation authorities banned gatherings by Mejlis members and prosecuted individuals for discussing the Mejlis on social media (see section 6).

c. Freedom of Religion

See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.

d. Freedom of Movement

Russian occupation authorities did not respect rights related to freedom of movement and travel.

In-country Movement: There were reports occupation authorities selectively detained and at times abused persons attempting to enter or leave Crimea. According to human rights groups, Russian authorities routinely detained adult men at the administrative boundary for additional questioning, threatening to seize passports and documents, seizing telephones and memory cards, and questioning them for hours.

Occupation authorities prohibited entry into Crimea by Mustafa Jemilev and Refat Chubarov, members of the Verkhovna Rada, and the former and current chairmen of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, respectively, and Crimean Tatar activist Sinaver Kadyrov; and Ismet Yuksel, general director of the Crimean News Agency, on the pretext that they would incite radicalism.

Citizenship: Russian occupation authorities required all residents of Crimea to be Russian citizens. Those who refused Russian citizenship could be subjected to arbitrary expulsion. Multiple citizens of Ukraine were deported from Crimea for violating the Russian Federation’s immigration rules. In one case the HRMMU reported that, on January 20, the Crimea-born chairman of an NGO from Yevpatoriya providing free legal aid was convicted of an illegal stay in Crimea because he did not have a Russian passport. He was then deported.

Residents of Crimea who chose not to adopt Russian citizenship were considered foreigners. In some cases they could obtain a residency permit. Persons holding a residency permit without Russian citizenship, however, were deprived of key rights and could not own agricultural land, vote or run for office, register a religious congregation, or reregister a private vehicle. Authorities denied those who refused Russian citizenship access to government employment, education, and health care, as well as the ability to open bank accounts and buy insurance, among other limitations.

According to media sources, Russian authorities prosecuted private employers who continued to employ Ukrainians.

In some cases authorities compelled Crimean residents to surrender their Ukrainian passports, complicating international travel, because many countries did not recognize passports issued by Russian occupation authorities.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

Approximately 27,600 residents of Crimea registered as IDPs on the mainland, according to the Ministry of Social Policy. The Mejlis and local NGOs, such as Krym SOS, believed the actual number could be as high as 100,000, as most IDPs remained unregistered. Many individuals fled due to fear that occupation authorities would target them for abuse because of their work as political activists or journalists. Muslims, Greek Catholics, and Evangelical Christians who left Crimea said they feared discrimination due to their religious beliefs.

Crimean Tatars, who made up the largest number of IDPs, said they were concerned about pressure on their community, including an increasing number of arbitrary searches of their homes, surveillance, and discrimination. In addition, many professionals left Crimea because Russian occupation authorities required them to apply for Russian professional licenses and adopt Russian procedures in their work.

Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process

Recent Elections: Russian occupation authorities prevented residents from voting in Ukrainian national and local elections since Crimea’s occupation began in 2014.

In September 2016 Russia’s nationwide parliamentary elections included seats allocated for occupied Crimea, a move widely condemned by the international community. The Crimea Human Rights Group recorded incidents in which occupation authorities coerced residents into voting in the elections, including through threats of dismissals and wage cuts.

Section 4. Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government

Corruption: There were multiple reports during the year of systemic rampant corruption among Crimean “officeholders,” including through embezzlement of Russian state funds allocated to support the occupation.

Financial Disclosure: There were no known requirements for Russian occupation authorities or their agents to file, verify, or make public any income or asset disclosure statements, nor was there a mechanism to provide for public access to information about their activities.

Section 5. Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights

Most independent human rights organizations ceased activities in Crimea following Russia’s occupation. Occupation authorities refused to cooperate with independent human rights NGOs, ignored their views, and harassed human rights monitors and threatened them with fines and imprisonment.

Russia continued to deny access to the peninsula to international human rights monitors from the OSCE and the United Nations.

Section 6. Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons

Children

Birth Registration: Under both Ukrainian law and laws imposed by Russian occupation authorities, either birthplace or parentage determines citizenship. Russia’s occupation and purported annexation of Crimea complicated the question of citizenship for children born after February 2014, since it was difficult for parents to register a child as a citizen with Ukrainian authorities. Registration in Ukraine required a hospital certificate, which is retained when a birth certificate is issued. Under the occupation regime, new parents could only obtain a Russian birth certificate and did not have access to a hospital certificate. In 2016 the Ukrainian government instituted a process whereby births in Crimea could be recognized with documents issued by occupation authorities.

Institutionalized Children: There were reports Russian authorities continued to permit kidnapping of orphans in Crimea and transporting them across the border into Russia for adoption. Ukraine’s government did not know the whereabouts of the children.

Anti-Semitism

According to Jewish groups, an estimated 10-15,000 Jews lived in Crimea, primarily in Simferopol. There were no reports of anti-Semitic acts.

National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Since the beginning of Russia’s occupation, authorities singled out Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians for discrimination, abuse, deprivation of civil liberties and religious and economic rights, and violence, including killings and abductions (also see sections 1.a.-1.d., 1.f., 2.a., 2.b., and 2.d.).

There were reports that government officials openly advocated discrimination and violence against Crimean Tatars. Occupation authorities harassed Crimean Tatars for speaking their language in public and forbade speaking it in the workplace. There were reports teachers prohibited schoolchildren from speaking Crimean Tatar to one another. Crimean Tatars were prohibited from celebrating their national holidays and commemorating victims of previous abuses. The Mejlis reported that Crimean Tatar communities did not seek permission for gatherings, because they assumed that occupation authorities would forbid them. School administrations were instructed to inform occupation authorities of the number and identities of students absent on May 18, a day commemorating the 1944 deportation of Crimean Tatars from the peninsula.

Occupation authorities also restricted the use of Crimean Tatar flags and symbols. On September 16, for example, police barred Crimean Tatar youth from holding a football match and forced them to remove their Crimean Tatar flag. The match, which had already begun, was forcibly stopped, and three Crimean Tatars were questioned. Occupation authorities claimed the match had not been authorized and was therefore illegal.

Occupation authorities placed restrictions on the Spiritual Administration of Crimean Muslims, which was closely associated with Crimean Tatars. According to human rights groups, Russian security services routinely monitored prayers at mosques for any mention that Crimea remained part of Ukraine. Russian security forces also monitored mosques for anti-Russian sentiment and as a means of recruiting police informants.

On April 19, the International Court of Justice ruled, in response to Ukraine’s January 17 request for provisional measures concerning the “Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination,” that the Russian Federation must refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to conserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis.

Russian occupation authorities also targeted ethnic Ukrainians. By the end of 2014, Ukrainian as a language of instruction was removed from university-level education in Crimea. According to the Crimea Human Rights Group, the number of school children instructed in Ukrainian decreased by 36 times since the start of the occupation. On April 19, the International Court of Justice ruled on provisional measures in proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation, concluding unanimously that the Russian Federation must “ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language.”

Occupation authorities have not permitted churches linked to ethnic Ukrainians, in particular the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, to register under Russian law. Occupation authorities harassed and intimidated members of the churches and used court proceedings to force the UOC-KP in particular to leave properties it had rented for years. On August 31, Russian law enforcement authorities broke into the UOC-KP cathedral of the Holy Apostolic Prince Volodymyr and Olga in Simferopol in connection with a property contracts dispute. According to Archbishop Klyment of Simferopol and Crimea, security services plundered and damaged property of the UOC-KP cathedral, tore down the altar, and confiscated icons. Archbishop Klyment received minor injuries during the raid. Occupation authorities sealed and blocked access to the first floor, despite a “court ruling” that bailiffs were supposed to seal only 134 square yards of the property. Church officials reported regular and systematic surveillance of UOC-KP churches and parishioners.

Russian occupation authorities targeted businesses and properties belonging to ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars for expropriation and seizure. In particular they prohibited Crimean Tatars affiliated with the Mejlis from registering businesses or properties.

Acts of Violence, Discrimination, and other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Human rights groups and local gay rights activists reported that much of the LGBTI community fled Crimea after the Russian occupation began. Those who remained live in fear of verbal and physical abuse due to their sexual orientation.

Russian occupation authorities prohibited any LGBTI group from holding public events in Crimea. LGBTI individuals faced increasing restrictions on their right to assemble peacefully, because occupation authorities enforced a Russian law that criminalizes the so-called propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors (see section 6 of the Country Reports on Human Rights for Russia).

Section 7. Worker Rights

Russian occupation authorities announced the labor laws of Ukraine would no longer be in effect after the start of 2016 and that only the laws of the Russian Federation would apply.

Russian occupation authorities imposed labor laws and regulations of the Russian Federation on Crimean workers, limited worker rights, and created barriers to freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the ability to strike. The pro-Russian authorities threatened to nationalize property owned by Ukrainian labor unions in Crimea. Ukrainians who did not accept Russian citizenship faced job discrimination in all sectors of the economy. Only holders of Russian national identification cards were allowed to work in “government” and municipal positions. Labor activists believed that unions were threatened in Crimea to accept “government” policy without question and faced considerable restrictions on advocating for their members.

Although no official data were available, experts estimated there was growing participation in the underground economy in Crimea.

ecoi.net description:: Crimea: Annual report on human rights in 2017
Country:: Ukraine
Source:: USDOS – US Department of State (Author)
Original link:: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2017/eur/277231.htm
Document type:: Periodical Report
Language:: English
Published:: 20 April 2018
Document ID:: 1430104 (former ID 357023)